Validation of short term recall of cell phone use
of the challenges in epidemiological studies of the risk of cell
phone use is the measurement of exposure i.e. the actual use of
the phone by study subjects. Vrijheid and colleagues recruited 653
volunteers in 11 of the countries that participated in the Interphone
study. Cell phone use was recorded by operators or by using software
modified phones, and compared with recalled use 6 months later using
the Interphone study questionnaire. Correlations between recalled
and actual phone use were moderate to high. The kappa statistic
showed moderate to fair agreement for both number and duration of
calls. There was moderate systematic error and substantial random
error in the recall by the users. The large random error would be
expected to reduce the power of the Interphone study to detect an
increase in risk of brain, acoustic nerve, and salivary gland tumours,
if a risk exists.
Vrijheid M, Cardis E, Armstrong BK, Auvinen A, et al. Validation
of short term recall of mobile phone use for the Interphone study.
Occup Environ Med 2006;63:237-243.
Another study shows lack of tumour promotion
A number of studies have failed to show an effect of radiofrequency
radiation on the promotion of cancer in animals. Another study can
be added to the list. Huang and colleagues investigated the effect
of RFR on mice that had dimethylbenz(a)anthracene (a known initiator
of tumour formation) applied to their skin. The RFR had no effect.
more, see "Research -Toxicological-Cancer
Studies-Tumour growth and development".
Huang T-Q, Lee J-S, Kim T-H, Pack J-K, et al. Effect of radiofrequency
radiation exposure on mouse skin tumorigenesis initiated by 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene.
Int J Radiat Biol 2005;81:861-867.
No change in heat shock proteins or oncogenes
after RFR exposure
and colleagues exposed human cancer cells to RFR at 1.9 MHz frequency
for 6 hours (5 minutes on, 10 minutes off). The average SARs were
1 and 10 W/kg. They assessed the expression of proto-oncogenes and
of heat shock proteins and compared the results to sham and heat-shock
were no significant changes in the levels of the proto-oncogenes
FOS, JUN, and MYC, or in the expression of Hsp27 or Hsp70, in response
to the RFR exposure.
more, see "Toxicological
Experiments-Cancer studies", and “Toxicological
Experiments– others- heat shock response”.
Chauhan V, Mariampillai A, Bellier PV, Qutob SS, et al. Gene expression
analysis of a human lymphoblastoma cell line exposed in vitro to
an intermittent 1.9 GHz pulse-modulated radiofrequency field. Radiat
And another study shows no effect of RFR on heat
shock proteins (or free radicals)
recent study also studied the effect of RFR on heat shock proteins,
and in addition examined the effect on release of free radicals.
Human monocytes were exposed for 60 minutes to RFR at 1800 MHz and
SAR of 2 W/kg. No effect was seen on Hsp70 or free radical levels.
more, see “Toxicological Experiments–
others- heat shock response”.
Simko M, Hartwig C, Lantow M, Lupke M, et al. Hsp70 expression and
free radical release after exposure to non-thermal radio-frequency
electromagnetic fields and ultrafine particles in human Mono Mac
6 cells. Toxicology Letters 2006;161:73-82.
health complaints attributed to EMF exposure
watchdog project was established in the Rhineland-Palatinate region
of Germany for an 18-month period starting in October 2003. Extensive
publicity was given to the project, and individuals were invited
to self-notify if they deemed themselves to have symptoms related
to exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs).
total of 192 persons registered, and of these 56% classified themselves
as being electromagnetic hypersensitive. Further studies on these
individuals are planned. The authors emphasize that the responses
cannot be used to estimate a population prevalence.
Schuz J, Petters C, Egle UT, Jansen B, et al. The “Mainzer-Wachhund”:
results from a watchdog project on self-reported health complaints
attributed to exposure to electromagnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics
of individuals with symptoms on cell phone exposure
and colleagues studied people that reported being sensitive to cell
phone signals and compared them with controls. The "sensitive"
subjects developed symptoms during exposure to GSM signals, but
also to sham exposure. There was no significant difference between
the two conditions. In addition the “sensitive” subjects
could not accurately detect when they were exposed to the RFR. The
authors suggest that psychological factors may play a part in this
Reference: Rubin GJ, Hahn G, Everitt BS, Cleare
AJ, et al. (2006): Are some participants sensitive to mobile phone
signals? Within participants double blind randomised provocation
study. BMJ 332:886-889.
more, see "Clinical Experiments
- others - General Health Complaints"
hypersensitivity is also discussed in “FAQ
#13”, in the Introduction to "Research",
and in “What’s New” June
’02, April ’03, September
’05, April ’06, and